• iampivot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    The thing that people miss in this is that the feature they’re seeking by putting servers in space is only to have servers outside of any jurisdiction, with the advantages that it might bring

    • TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Whatever company owns it will be responsible for it. That company will answer to whoever it needs to here on earth.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Imagine spending 10 years to build a server in space to avoid some law and next month government changes the law

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is 1 million% what’s at play here. Tech bros HATE that they have to deal with stupid laws, and putting a server outside of the jurisdiction of literally every country is a dream. A giant server ship has to dock, it needs fuel…not so with something in orbit (in Elon fantasy land anyway)

  • drspectr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Well its a great ideal if you happen to be a company with a space program, sounds like a very lucrative venture.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ridiculous, you can’t have cloud computing in space, there’s no atmosphere!

  • Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t think the point is to really build datacenters in space. The point is to convince investors that it can be done in a profitable manner so some people can create a fake businesses out of it and siphon money off the system. Much like the same as trying to convince investors that LLM + more money = AGI

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I also wonder if this is an entire red herring. There are increasing reasons for more compute in space, such as to pre-filter sensor data.

      Is it to naive/optimistic to think no one is actually looking for a space datacenter to compute terrestrial loads, but they recognize the need for processing space loads?

      • architect@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        See now you all are thinking.

        The rich wouldn’t tell us this shit if it wasn’t going to be used as some spin/distraction whatever it is.

    • kossa@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a legal thing. No (real) jurisdiction. In space nobody will shut down Grok generating kiddo porn. It’s basically the precursor for Epstein Island 2.0.

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Yes, and it’s easier to cool things on earth. In space, there’s no air to help you cool thinks off, you can only reject heat through radiation. Most spacecraft are carefully designed to reflect heat/light on surfaces facing the sun and radiate heat into empty space from surfaces that are shaded.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes I’d like to build data centres on Uranus one of the most distant planets in our solar system, and also one without a solid surface but who’s counting.

          • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            My understanding is that these “datacenters” would be used exclusively for model training, where latency doesn’t matter.

            It is still an outrageously stupid idea for a zillion other engineering reasons, though.

            • gramie@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              There’s also the issue that around once a year the two planets will be on opposite sides of the sun. Not only would you have a lag of close to 3 hours, but communication would be completely impossible for a month or so at a time.

        • LwL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          It would need to have an atmosphere, so asteroids and most (all? Idk not an astronomer) moons are out.

          Mars might be feasible at some point in the far future, but there’s still the lag problem of 3-20 minutes depending on time of year, so not very useful for anything user facing.

          • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            most moons

            Pretty much every moon but Titan. Titan, however, would be excellent for heat dissipation. Long before generative AI was even a thing, scientists have speculated that Titan would be the perfect place for datacenters because low-temperature computation is so much more efficient.

            Of course, building a datacenter on Titan would be a several-hundred-trillion dollar endeavor, so… good luck bootstrapping your way into that industry.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            None of the moons in our solar system have atmospheres. Earths moon is too small to hold on to an atmosphere, and the Galilean moons of Jupiter are too cold for an atmosphere, the gases just freeze.

            The best place would be either a space station in low earth orbit or of the L4 or L5 point. The data issue would be the problem though I suppose you could just use the data centres for training but not for active processing but then you would need to build data centres on earth for that.

            Given that you’re going to build the earth data centres anyway you might as well do all of the processing on earth at the same time.

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Considering the ludicrous price to put each pound of equipment into orbit, I’d like to invite them to send as much hardware as they can in to (high) geostationary orbit so they can find out how well a vacuum does NOT promote radiating heat

    Edit: also forgot about solar radiation flipping bits. I love the idea of them having to reboot the machine (if they even can) remotely once ever 15 minutes

  • itsblorpintime@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Whatever happened to resource efficiency, being able to do more for less energy? This whole thing is super unsustainable.

  • Ranulph@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Making reusable rockets is impossible and stupid. Electric cars are stupid and wont work. Satellite internet is too expensive and stupid. So far Elmo is batting 3 for 3 and I am going to bet he can make it work. Unlike the CyberTruck

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      More nuanced (and without using the word “stupid”)

      • Making reusable rockets is very difficult. It was high risk, high reward.
      • Electric cars were always the climate change solution IF the battery gets good enough. And it got good enough. I hate my country’s car industry (I’m from Germany) for not getting their asses up.
      • Satellite internet is in fact too expensive for average customers. I think, no on has ever declared it as bad for people in regions without existing internet intrastructure. The question is how profitable it is, but it’s not publicly traded, so we will probably not get the numbers.

      For sure, Elmo can somehow make profit out of it, e.g. by selling the space cloud usage as “can’t be controlled by an government on earth” for a high price. But when we concentrate on the facts: It can’t be more efficient than Azure or AWS on earth, at least not for the next decades.

      • Ranulph@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The Russians spat at his feet when he asked to buy their rocket engines, lots of naysayers. I have and love my starlink.

    • mad_djinn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      none of these things “have worked” they just represent a privately subsidized shift in infrastructure and society. there is no such thing as progress, you progressive

      gleaming eyes wide open

      • Ranulph@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I am biased because I have starklink and love it. It works…but before Elon worked on his vision for re usable rockets it was a dream. He changed the world.

  • Ftumch@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 days ago

    There’s another problem that nobody mentions. Putting thousands of additional satellites into space would seriously increase the risk of Kessler Syndrome occurring.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      This isn’t true for low orbit items. They will come down on their own in ~5 years.

      At the absolute worst case scenario, we’d be blocked or ~5 years. R

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Collisions in LEO can chuck debris into orbits which intersect higher orbits. If one of those collides with something in in said higher orbits, you have a problem.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Any orbit resulting from a collision will pass through that collision point unless there’s another collision to change it’s velocity again. The higher a collision sends an object, the more likely the “orbit” intersects with more atmosphere to cause drag, or it might even collide with the ground without drag.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I sincerely doubt that a collision in low earth orbit is going to result in debris being flicked up into geostationary orbits, the energy differences involved are just monumental.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          It’s possible it could go to a higher orbit, but we don’t have mega constellations in those orbits. I don’t know enough to know how far something could get flung up either, but I suspect if you’re in a 5y orbit, you aren’t reaching a 50y orbit area, and probably not even a 10y orbit area.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      At this point I feel we’d just be immunising the rest of the universe from human stupidity.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Little bit of a nitpick but Kessler syndrome doesn’t care about how many satellites you have, and more about how many dead satellites you have hanging around on random orbits. You could put hundreds of millions of satellites in space as long as you had some sort of decommissioned program. You can always send up rockets if you can just move the satellites out of the way / know where they are.

      • Ftumch@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Dead satellites do add a much larger risk than satellites that can be steered, sure. If we stopped steering all our satellites right now, I believe it’d only take a few days before a collision occurred.

        However, every satellite in orbit adds to the risk, especially if a chain reaction starts happening and it becomes very hard to avoid the shrapnel flying around. Or if a once-in-a-century-type solar flare takes out a bunch of satellites.

        Edit: Basically, the best way to prevent Kessler Syndrome from occurring, is to keep the number of satellites in orbit below the threshold where it could occur.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    4 days ago

    My question is always how the hell are you going to cool them. Do you know hard it is to move heat in a vacuum?

    • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      93
      ·
      3 days ago

      The problems; plural; is that the person who popularized the idea of data centers in space has little to zero understanding of any of the space sciences and yet owns and directs one of the world’s largest, and privately owned, aerospace companies with massive government contracts that splits its time with their own AI work.

    • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      How would you power them?

      The surface area of solar panels exceeds the surface area needed for radiators to cool everything.

      In space I would imagine you’d find the perfect sandwich ratio. One bun solar, one bun radiators, the meat being the racks.

    • Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 days ago

      Have you never seen a movie set in space? Evrytime someone gets sucked into space they freeze. You saying every movie got it wrong?? Space is cold. Duh.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      Easy, just create a long heat sink and dangle it in the earth’s atmosphere. Now we are winning!

    • Fermion@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      With radiators just like with every existing satellite system.

      https://youtu.be/DCto6UkBJoI&t=12m57s

      Very large scale datacenters would likely have some nasty fluid handling problems to solve.

      I’ll just note that I am not a fan of putting internet infrastructure in space. I think polluting the upper atmosphere with a bunch of metals every time a satellite deorbits will certainly have negative consequences. So IMO space should be limited to things we can’t do with earthbound infrastructure.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          And you can only build so many of those radiator panels before you start running into congestion problems. You don’t want them radiating onto each other.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          The area of radiator needed directly corresponds to the amount of power harvested by the solar panels. It doesn’t matter what the load is. So a compute frame with the same amount of solar panels as the space station would need approximately the same radiatot area as the ISS, unless you are bringing nuclear power into the mix.

          I agree that space based datacenters are a bad idea, but the thermals really are not the gotcha people are making them out to be.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            The solar panels needed is another problem for the space data center fantasy. Once you put together all the mass over enough surface area to make it work, you would blot out the sun worldwide.

      • lordnikon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah the amount of heat a data center vs a satellite your going to super heat the space in that orbit over time. It they are geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn’t move away from the heat.

        • erin@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          Geostationary satellites are not standing still. They’re orbiting the Earth at the same rate that it rotates “beneath” them.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Super heat what in that space? The point is there’s nothing to transfer heat to. All you can do is radiate infra-red light.

        • nabladabla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Um, it doesn’t make the data center in orbit thing make sense, but a geostationary satellite absolute moves at high speed and does not stay in the same place in space.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The heat would be moving at the same speed. Though, that does mean it wouldn’t be any better in any other orbit.

            • Fermion@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Thermal energy is primarily dissipated as infrared light which moves at the speed of light. There is no way for space to accumulate heat. If that were the case the entire solar system would be unlivable. The IR emitted by satellites is truly negligible in comparison to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun.

            • nabladabla@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Again, it doesn’t help the case, but just… no. The heat gets out of the spacecraft by radiating, and radiation doesn’t move in a circular orbit around Earth, it moves at speed of light outwards from where it started.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Radiators in space work by radiating electromagnetic energy(light). Heat can only accumulate in matter, not in space, so that is definitely not one of the things we need to worry about.

        • teft@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn’t move away from the heat.

          Geostationary would leave the satellite in shadow anytime it was night time over the part of the earth since a geostationary orbit is stationary in the sky over a given point at the equator.

          That doesn’t solve any of the cooling problems just saying that you do get some shadow at geostationary orbits.

          There are other orbits that get less shadow though.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            It’ll be in shadow at midnight, yes, but not necessarily at any other time. Geostationary orbit is at about 7x the radius of the earth.

            As such, the period when in will actually be in shadow is only a short period directly behind the planet.

        • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          Obnoxious as he seems to be, he’s actually right, there will be no convection, but they’d radiate heat in a vacuum, by IR IIRC.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 days ago

            You’d need an enormous radiator to move the heat a data center puts out. Not even all the billionaires put together could afford that.

            • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              Sure, the idea is as bad as solar roadways. It’s actually kind of impressive to come up with an idea that bad.

          • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            To do that they’d have to be filled with something other than something water based to be able to do that over a large area which would require constant maintenance to do so. It’s not easily feasible and I doubt people who want to do this or defend it realize that. I have to look it up but it takes Anhydrous Ammonia to perform that in the ISS. Like this is a bad idea and it fries my brain people trying to defend this.

            • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yeah as I have already said, it’s kind of impressive how bad the idea is, I mean how can it be worse…

          • athatet@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            3 days ago

            What you don’t understand is the size requirements those radiators would need to have to cool an entire data center.

          • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            Tell me you don’t know how radiators actually work without telling me. They dissipate heat via convection through the air surrounding them or gasses in general. What does space lack a significant amount of?

            • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yeah so there is some confusion here. The are radiators on cars or in houses, but those are more accurately heat exchangers. Then there are things like heat lamps, which are really IR radiators that convert electricity to infrared light that feels hot.

              Most of the heat you feel at a camp fire is radiant from the flame, unless you are down wind and feeling some convective heat, but most of that heat goes straight up with the smoke.

                • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  Hard to say, but they’ve been using resistive radiative cooling In space a long time.

                  Also a tech ingredients made a neat video about building one and radiating heat out into space from the ground. It was cool to see what happened when it was cloudy and stopped working.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Raditors. Starlink v3 can in theory already shed (edit 20) kW of heat. But they would need to figure out how to 5x that and keep things profitable.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        It would be 20kW for each rack or two. The types of data centre deal they talk about these days are measured in GW of compute. That’s 50,000x just for 1GW.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          These aren’t big things, they’re small satellites. They’re going to be ~100kW. They only need to 5x the existing radiator they think will work.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 days ago

      I envision a future so shitty that people are willing to physically destroy data centers in self-defense. Putting them in space is a really good way to combat that.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 days ago

        Putting them in space also puts them technically outside of the legal jurisdiction of any country. I figure fElon probably assumes that means said servers can never be subpoenaed.

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean a data center barge or one in Antarctica would do much the same and be wildly cheaper and (relatively) more practical.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Oh yeah it’s totally a bullshit argument, it wouldn’t hold water in any court. Hell if nothing else, the ground stations like you said, or the country whose airspace the center exists over, would be in jurisdiction.

            But I do believe that Musk believes it’s a get out of jail free card.

            • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              Agreed. The US can access/subpoena any data it wants from US companies, even if the servers they host the data on are in Europe or Asia or…

              It doesn’t matter where the servers and the data is located. It matters who posses (or controls the access) to it.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Putting data centers in space is a good way to keep people from destroying them. Thermodynamics on the other hand, will have a field day with them.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Keep people from destroying data centers by having them destroy themselves? Is this some sort of zen koan?

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          They aren’t maintained. They’re a constellation of small satellites in LEO like starlink that just go up and eventually come down.

          If they’re too far up latency would be too high

          No one is repairing any of these starlink type dishes.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Wasn’t it recently proven that the metals introduced into the upper atmosphere by satellites burning up depletes ozone? Its not a problem yet but maintaining constellations on the scale of cumulative several gigawatts of data centre would leave several tons of satellite burning up every single day. CFC Ozone hole is gonna look like a cloudy day in comparison.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              I just wanted to add another note

              Even if this ozone thing turns out to not be true, there are still all sorts of other things being burned up in the atmosphere that can have other potential effects. It all needs to be studied given the size of these constellations.

              I wouldn’t be surprised if 50-60 years from now, if there is a real issue, that it eventually comes out that SpaceX or other mega constellation companies figured out it would be a problem, and just said nothing. Much like how big oil new CO2 was a problem forever ago and hid it.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              I don’t think anything was proven yet, but something came out saying it warranted more studying?

              Satellites might need to be redesigned around it in the future and more studies should be done.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              If they stop working they will just de-orbit it early, or if they can’t cause it’s really broken, they’ll just wait the ~5-10 years to come down on it’s own.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I love how his rationale is that manufacturers of natural gas generator parts are backordered o 2030, so instead of… I don’t know, spinning up more natural gas hardware or terrestial power generation, the easiest solution is to go from 11 attempts/0 successful launches of a space platform to tens of thousands of launches a year carrying unprecedented mass of bullshit into orbit…

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      In either case the installation cost and infrastructure costs are excessive and the I/o is probably limited

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 days ago

    The idea of putting data centers in low Earth orbit sounds cool at first. It feels futuristic. It feels like something that should be efficient. It is not.

    Yes, space is cold. Yes, you get a lot of solar power. Those are the two points everyone repeats. What they leave out is basic physics and cost.

    Cooling in space is not free. There is no convection. Heat only leaves through radiation. That means giant radiator panels. AI racks throw off massive heat loads. The more compute you add, the more radiator surface area you need. That adds mass. Mass costs money to launch.

    Even with companies like SpaceX driving launch prices down, it is still extremely expensive per kilogram. And servers are not permanent infrastructure. They get replaced every three to five years. You cannot economically upgrade racks in orbit the way you do in a building on Earth.

    Then you have radiation. Either you harden the electronics, which makes them slower and more expensive, or you accept higher failure rates and build in heavy redundancy. Maintenance becomes a logistical nightmare. A failed power supply on Earth is a service call. In orbit it is a robotics problem.

    Meanwhile hyperscalers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, and Google put data centers next to cheap power, fiber backbones, and cold climates. It is boring. It is practical. It works. Orbital data centers only make sense if we already have large scale industry in space. We do not.

    And what really makes these threads irritating is the obvious rage bait framing. Throw up a clickbait title about AI destroying the planet or Big Tech trying to escape Earth and you attract people who already hate AI. The discussion stops being about engineering and economics and turns into ideological noise.

    If someone wants to seriously debate energy efficiency or scaling limits, fine. But pretending near Earth orbit is some obvious solution is not serious analysis. It is a cool sci fi concept. It is not a rational infrastructure strategy.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      To add to your point about logistical nightmare, Microsoft tried an underwater datacenter. Even right there, just a little bit underwater was absolutely not worth it.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Really? I would have figured the Rapture route would be workable with the right engineering. Especially given the massive amounts of borderline free cooling and non-existing regulatory environment if outside territorial waters.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Possible, but just not worth it. In their case it was barely underwater in some shallows. Go full Rapture without ADAM and it’s just untenable.

    • prenatal_confusion@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Servers get replaced that often because they are using too much energy for too little computing power compared to newer generations. If the module is already up there and functioning and energy is free then it’s a whole different thing.

      Defects are another topic.

      And the whole thing is obviously crazy for a whole lot of other reasons.