• 54 Posts
  • 2.79K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 23rd, 2024

help-circle
  • That video is very poor, for focusing on a red herring of trying to build a monolith 1gw datacenter in space. There is no plan for such. Instead a mesh of smaller (fits in 1 rocket) datacenters that each have their own solar/radiators auto deployed with the datacluster. Inference does not need fast networking between clusters as models fit in a single cluster easily.

    It’s still completely uneconomic because even GPUs that survive 5 years, are worthless after 5 years. Plan is to trash the datacenters every 5 years including the solar and radiators.



  • Solar on deserts, or even Nebraska farmland, is far more profitable than corn for ethanol and produces far more energy. Even with 2-5 hours of sunlight/day, battery systems, would be 5x cheaper in Nebraska than space for 24/7/365 power production, with perhaps minor throtling in winter. A datacenter in the middle of a solar farm also eliminates noise complaints from cooling systems.


  • large radiators argument is extremely poor. Plan is a mesh of small datacenter modules. The inter nvl72 networking speed is irrelevant for inference/skynet. However, there is no hot semiconductor technology theory that competes with silicon for feature size/speed. There are much better designs than circulating fluid radiators, but all of them, add complexity and pump/nozzle failures. Supercritical compression (heat pump) systems is vastly more prone to failure, including in pipe/connection network. It also means thick, less deployable, radiators.


  • The core reason space datacenters are uneconomical, is the 5 year replacement cycle. Includes trashing the solar and radiators every 5 years even if they could last 30+ because datacenter modules need to auto-deploy their own power and radiators. Ocean deployments would be far better. Wind/solar/batteries doesn’t need frequent change. Just drop in a new module every 5 years, while taking out the old one, and rebuilding its insides.



  • It’s a good point that providing the security systems of nuclear power plants is cheaper and more job creating than space datacenters. You can also get more uppity when international adversaries nuke your datacenter on US soil as opposed to space.

    But more money to a guy that recycles $100m+ into politicians every election cycle, provides decision maker influence to subsidize space skynet. Continuity of nazi/zionazi ideology may require being beyond any temporary loss of control over law.



  • There is zero economic reason. Most optimistic cost estimates are 5x more expensive than earth systems powered by solar and batteries. With near term optimism 10x more expensive.

    The only reason is skynet that is immune for anyone in the US pulling the plug from skynet. Russia/China can already hit sattelites or terrestrial datacenters with missiles, and space ones are more vulnerable because Americans are more likely to cheer destruction of skynet assets used to oppress them.

    The other factor is international law permits squatters rights to the most desirable orbits. 300 years from now, we may need power/data beemed to/from space. Privatizing it for oligarchy is a great long term investment if it is subsidized by US government.