logoalt Hacker News

asciimike • yesterday at 6:42 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

The viability of space DCs seem to depend entirely on the existence of higher latency, lower throughput, single card to single server workloads, which IMO isn't the primary class of workload today (and if one holds the belief that frontier models will maintain their dominant position, this will remain rack/row/facility level, which isn't viable for orbital facilities to handle as currently designed).

If that workload does expand in usage, and the economics of orbital DCs make sense (with high launch costs, zero ability to do maintenance, and weight penalties for shielding and radiators), then surely ocean based data centers (e.g. Panthalassa) make more sense (lower 'launch' costs, high but existant latency on maintenance, no weight penalties), and if those make sense then surely the distributed land based facilities (e.g. Rune Energy) or home based facilities (e.g. Span XFRA) make even more sense (easier maintenance, low/no permitting overhead because they're covered by existing permits, reasonable quality terrestrial fiber internet).


Replies

wmf • yesterday at 11:59 PM

Starmind is already one rack.

svara • yesterday at 9:38 PM

I don't think it's quite as crazy as you make it sound.

Per unit area, the radiators dissipate a similar amount of energy as the solar panels do, so they'll be a similar size. That's doable.

The upside is there's no land and power generation or grid connection issue; you get solar power 24/7 and the latency to earth is just a few ms.

It would also be possible to fly the individual satellites close together so that you can do high bandwidth optical links between them, i.e. you're not limited to single rack workloads.

A single GB200 rack costs about $3M, transporting its 1.4 tons on a Falcon 9 would cost a similar amount, around $4-5M.

That's got to be too expensive for now, but it's also not in a range that's totally off.

The idea is essentially a bet on land and power continuing to be a big issue and launch costs getting a lot cheaper, which they very well might with Starship. The rest is engineering challenges that are probably solvable.

➕ show 4 replies
dboreham • yesterday at 8:27 PM

I don't think we need that many words. It's an obviously preposterously stupid idea that has been promoted only to defraud investors.

➕ show 5 replies