zlacker

[parent] [thread] 33 comments
1. mike_h+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 09:33:10
It sounds hard but it shouldn't not make sense.

1. Solving cost of launching mass has been the entire premise of SpaceX since day one and they have the track record.

2. Ingress/egress aren't at all bottlenecks for inferencing. The bytes you get before you max out a context window are trivial, especially after compression. If you're thinking about latency, chat latencies are already quite high and there's going to be plenty of non-latency sensitive workloads in future (think coding agents left running for hours on their own inside sandboxes).

3. This could be an issue, but inferencing can be tolerant to errors as it's already non-deterministic and models can 'recover' from bad tokens if there aren't too many of them. If you do immersion cooling then the coolant will protect the chips from radiation as well.

4. There is probably plenty of scope to optimize space radiators. It was never a priority until now and is "just" an engineering problem.

5. What mass manufacture? Energy production for AI datacenters is currently bottlenecked on Siemens and others refusing to ramp up production of combined cycle gas turbines. They're converting old jet engines into power plants to work around this bottleneck. Ground solar is simply not being considered by anyone in the industry because even at AI spending levels they can't store enough power in batteries to ride out the night or low power cloudy days. That's not an issue in space where the huge amount of Chinese PV overproduction can be used 24/7.

replies(8): >>Frankl+B5 >>haspok+Ze >>monoos+Ch >>clysm+b41 >>drtz+Gd1 >>catoc+9x1 >>danans+WG1 >>Rover2+ca2
2. Frankl+B5[view] [source] 2026-02-04 10:15:28
>>mike_h+(OP)
> There is probably plenty of scope to optimize space radiators. It was never a priority until now and is "just" an engineering problem.

Well, it's a physics problem. The engineering solution is possibly not cost efficient. I'd put a lot of money that it isn't.

replies(3): >>bborud+8e >>Ajedi3+SK >>drtz+Pe1
◧◩
3. bborud+8e[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 11:21:43
>>Frankl+B5
That bit reminded me of someone who wanted us to design a patch the size of a small postage stamp, at most 0.2mm thick, so you could stick on products. It was to deliver power for two years of operation, run an LTE modem, a GNSS receiver, an MCU, temperature and humidity sensor and would cost $0.10. And it would send back telemetry twice per day.
replies(1): >>jacque+Tn
4. haspok+Ze[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:28:20
>>mike_h+(OP)
> There is probably plenty of scope to optimize space radiators. It was never a priority until now and is "just" an engineering problem.

It's a physics problem, as others pointed out, but even if we take it as another "just an engineering problem", have a look at the Hyperloop. Which is similarly just a long vacuum tube, and inside is like an air hockey table, not that big a deal, right?...

replies(1): >>mike_h+YZ
5. monoos+Ch[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:47:41
>>mike_h+(OP)
I have no expertise is this area, so I'm not getting into whether or not this idea makes sense.

That being said, this statement strikes me as missing the point:

> Solving cost of launching mass has been the entire premise of SpaceX since day one and they have the track record.

As I understand it, SpaceX has a good track record of putting things into space more cost effectively than other organisations that put things into space.

That is not the benchmark here.

It doesn't matter if Musk can run thousands of data centres in space more cost effectively than (for example) NASA could. It matters whether he can do it more cost effectively than running them on earth.

replies(2): >>mike_h+Fo >>tfehri+hL
◧◩◪
6. jacque+Tn[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 12:34:22
>>bborud+8e
'A mere matter of engineering'.
replies(2): >>verzal+UO >>bborud+Bb1
◧◩
7. mike_h+Fo[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 12:38:50
>>monoos+Ch
The cost of "launching" mass on Earth is not zero, though.
replies(1): >>monoos+Tr
◧◩◪
8. monoos+Tr[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 13:01:41
>>mike_h+Fo
I didn't suggest that it was.
◧◩
9. Ajedi3+SK[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 14:51:33
>>Frankl+B5
What makes you so sure? SpaceX already has thousands of 6 kW networking racks flying around in LEO and they dissipate their heat just fine, and are plenty cost-effective. You think they can't do any better than that with a new design specifically optimized for computing rather than networking?
replies(2): >>verzal+kO >>unders+ku1
◧◩
10. tfehri+hL[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 14:54:34
>>monoos+Ch
I don’t think that statement was missing the point. As you point out, what matters is the total cost of ownership of the system. The cost of launching mass into space today isn’t the only reason terrestrial data centers are more cost effective today, but it’s the main one. If you make it cheap enough to send giant solar arrays and radiators to space, the other costs of operating in space may start to look like a small price to pay to eliminate the need for inputs like land and batteries.
◧◩◪
11. verzal+kO[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 15:07:23
>>Ajedi3+SK
Probably, but they likely can't do better than we can do on Earth. Networking in space offers specific advantages that are not easy to replicate on Earth. Data centers in space don't have clear advantages beyond easily debunked ideas about cooling and power.
replies(1): >>Ajedi3+u31
◧◩◪◨
12. verzal+UO[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 15:09:40
>>jacque+Tn
All you need to do is make use of a higher dimension to pack stuff into. And then mass produce to bring costs down. How hard can that be?
replies(1): >>bborud+cc1
◧◩
13. mike_h+YZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:00:07
>>haspok+Ze
Musk's companies never tried to make the hyperloop, they never even started on it. SpaceX is a bit different.
replies(1): >>diabll+3h1
◧◩◪◨
14. Ajedi3+u31[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:15:50
>>verzal+kO
I'm not talking about the whole idea, just the heat dissipation part. So many people in this thread seem so sure this is impossible because you can't radiate heat in space, completely ignorant to the fact that SpaceX is already dissipating over 20 MW of solar power in LEO in a reasonably cost-effective manner.

The advantage of 24/7 solar power is clear, obvious, and undeniable, it's just a question of whether that's outweighed by the other disadvantages.

15. clysm+b41[view] [source] 2026-02-04 16:18:42
>>mike_h+(OP)
3. There are WAY more things to get corrupted on a computer system than tokens. And non-determinism does NOT mean it’s tolerant to faults. Random values are intentionally introduced at the right moment for LLMs.
◧◩◪◨
16. bborud+Bb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:48:41
>>jacque+Tn
The conversation went something like this (from memory):

- We can't do that

- Why not?

- Well, physics for one.

- What do you mean?

- Well, at the very least we need to be able to emit enough RF-energy for a mobile base station to be able to detect it and allow itself to be convinced it is seeing valid signaling.

- Yes?

- The battery technology that fits within your constraints doesn't exist. Nevermind the electronics or antenna.

- Can't you do something creative? We heard you were clever.

I distinctly remember that last line. But I can't remember what my response was. It was probably something along the lines of "if I were that clever I'd be at home polishing my Nobel medal in physics".

Even the sales guy who dragged me into this meeting couldn't keep it together. He spent the whole one hour drive back to the office muttering "can't you do something creative" and then laughing hysterically.

I think the solution they went for was irreversible freeze and moisture indication stickers. Which was what I suggested they go for in the first 5 minutes of the meeting since that a) solved their problem, and b) is on the market, and c) can be had for the price point in bulk.

replies(2): >>jacque+cl1 >>klaff+kL2
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. bborud+cc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:51:28
>>verzal+UO
Skippy the Magnificent will solve this for us.

(reference to a character in the Expiditionary Force series by Craig Alanson

Only a very small portion of his physical presence is in local spacetime, with the rest in higher spacetime. He can expand his physical presence from the size of an oil drum or shrink to the size of a lipstick tube. He can’t maintain that for long without risking catastrophic effects. If he did, he would lose containment, fully materialize in local spacetime and occupy local space equal to one quarter the size of Paradise. The resulting explosion would eventually be seen in the Andromeda Galaxy.)

18. drtz+Gd1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 16:58:57
>>mike_h+(OP)
> It sounds hard but it shouldn't not make sense.

It does not make sense.

The question isn't "can you mitigate the problems to some extent?", it's "can you see a path to making satellite data centers more appealing than terrestrial?"

The answer is a flat out "no," and none of your statements contradict this.

Terrestrial will always be better:

1. Reducing the cost of launches is great, but it will never be as cheap as zero launches.

2. Radio transmissions have equally high bandwidth from Earth, but fiber is a better network backbone in almost every way.

3. Radiation events don't only cause unpredictable data errors, they can also cause circuit latch-ups and cascade into system failure. Error-free operation is still better in any case. Earth's magenetosphere and atmosphere give you radiation shielding for free, rad-hard chips will always cost more than standard (do they even exist for this application?), and extra shielding will always cost more than no shielding.

4. On Earth you can use conduction, convection, AND radiation for cooling. Space only gets you marginally more effective radiation.

5. Solar is cheaper on the ground than in space. The increase in solar collection capability per unit area in space doesn't offset the cost of launch: you can get 20kW of terrestrial solar collection for around the price of a single 1U satellite launch, and that solar production can be used on upgraded equipment in the future. Any solar you put on a satellite gets decommissioned when the inference hardware is obsolete.

And this ignores other issues like hardware upgrades, troubleshooting, repairs, and recycling that are essentially impossible in space, but are trivial on the ground.

◧◩
19. drtz+Pe1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 17:03:08
>>Frankl+B5
Not only is it not cost-effective, it's pointless (in this context).

Radiators works almost just as well on Earth. Convection and conduction more than make up the difference.

◧◩◪
20. diabll+3h1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 17:14:34
>>mike_h+YZ
so spacex worked on an orbital data center?
replies(1): >>Rover2+va2
◧◩◪◨⬒
21. jacque+cl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 17:33:03
>>bborud+Bb1
That's so hilarious. I've had a couple that went in that direction but nothing to come close.

To be fair though, there is a lot of tech that to me seems like complete magic and yet it exists. SDR for instance, still has me baffled. Who ever thought you'd simply digitize the antenna signal and call it a day, hardware wise, the rest is just math, after all.

When you get used to enough miracles like that without actually understanding any of it and suddenly the impossible might just sound reasonable.

> Can't you do something creative? We heard you were clever.

Should be chiseled in marble.

replies(1): >>bborud+zw1
◧◩◪
22. unders+ku1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 18:09:08
>>Ajedi3+SK
The solar panels on the newest satellites can deliver 6kW but the power that satellite actually uses is less. The satellite is only using 300W[1] during the dark phase of it's orbit when it can use it's entire mass to cool down. Is that limit because of the battery or is it because the satellite needs to radiate all the heat it acquired from the other half of the time in the sun?

[1] https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dim...

replies(1): >>Ajedi3+3w1
◧◩◪◨
23. Ajedi3+3w1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 18:15:50
>>unders+ku1
Looks like that's a purely speculative assumption the blog author made, not a fact. I'm not sure why he made that assumption given that Starlink doesn't actually stop working at night.

Fair point that in SSO you'd need 2-3x the radiator area (and half the solar panels, and minimal/no batteries). I don't think that invalidates my point though.

replies(1): >>unders+xz2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
24. bborud+zw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 18:18:30
>>jacque+cl1
The purely digital neighborhood of the SDRs is much easier to explain than the analog rat droppings between the DAC/ADC and the antenna. That part belongs to dark wizards with costly instruments that draw unsettling polar plots, and whose only consistent output is a request for even pricier gear from companies whose names sound an awful lot like European folk duos.

The digital end of SDRs are simple. Sample it, then once you have trapped the signal in digital form beat the signal into submission with the stick labeled "linear algebra".

(Nevermind that the math may be demanding. Math books are nowhere near as scary as the Sacred Texts Of The Dark Wizards)

"Rohde & Schwarz — live at the VNA, 96 dB dynamic range, one night only."

replies(1): >>jacque+6x1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
25. jacque+6x1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 18:20:44
>>bborud+zw1
> whose names sound an awful lot like European folk duos.

That had me laughing out loud, you should have left the name out to make it more of a puzzler :)

I apparently have been drawn to the occult for a long time and feel more comfortable with coils, capacitors and transmission lines than I do with the math behind them. Of course it's great to be able to just say 'ridiculously steep bandpass filter here' and expect it to work but I know that building that same thing out of discrete components - even if the same math describes it - would run into various very real limitations soon.

And here I am on a budget SDR speccing a 10 Hz bandfilter and it just works. I know there must be some downside to this but for the life of me I can't find it.

replies(1): >>defros+KM2
26. catoc+9x1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 18:21:02
>>mike_h+(OP)
“just an engineering problem”

Sounds a bit like that Dilbert where the marketing guy has sold a new invisible computer and is telling the engineers to now do their job and actually make it.

27. danans+WG1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 19:01:32
>>mike_h+(OP)
> Solving cost of launching mass has been the entire premise of SpaceX since day one and they have the track record.

They have to solve for it being cheaper to launch and operate in space vs building and operating a datacenter with its own power generation on Earth.

28. Rover2+ca2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 21:17:24
>>mike_h+(OP)
My lord a sensible comment her. A hearty upvote.
replies(1): >>estima+vm2
◧◩◪◨
29. Rover2+va2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 21:18:21
>>diabll+3h1
no, just merely more satellites than the rest of the world combined, with the first functioning laser links in a large constellation.
◧◩
30. estima+vm2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:20:44
>>Rover2+ca2
It really isn't. It's plainly incorrect and ignorant of the actual problems.
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. unders+xz2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:35:24
>>Ajedi3+3w1
Article doesn't say the satellites stop working in their dark phase, it says they consume 300W in the dark phase based on some battery math.
◧◩◪◨⬒
32. klaff+kL2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:57:02
>>bborud+Bb1
I like your sales guy. Might have punched them after a while but that's right up there with the time someone tried to tell me there was no iron in steel because it wasn't in the ingredients list. And this someone sold stamped steel parts!
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
33. defros+KM2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:11:35
>>jacque+6x1
> I know there must be some downside to this but for the life of me I can't find it.

Literally Goethe's Faust (A Tragedy, Part I) .. you're good unless a poodle transforms into Mephistopheles on your deathbed.

replies(1): >>jacque+rP2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
34. jacque+rP2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:34:25
>>defros+KM2
I knew it ;)
[go to top]